Seeking details about Minolta Elite 5400 scanner

  • Thread starter Thread starter Norm Dresner
  • Start date Start date
N

Norm Dresner

The Konica-Minolta web-site is worthless for any technical information. I
can't find much else at any of the camera stores I usually shop at, so I'm
appealing for the following information:

1. Resolutions -- Obviously it does 5400 DPI (nominal). What else?
Probably 2700? Anything in-between like 3600 or 4500?

2. File Formats -- Does it produce JPG, TIFF, or proprietary files?

3. Typical file sizes -- Simple math says (based on 5232x7800 pixels) that
there are ~37.7 MP in an image. Assuming 16-bits per channel, that's a raw
file size of 37.7 x 6 MB = 226 MB / file. At 8-bits per color, the sizes are
half that. Now I'm sure it doesn't produce 226 MB files. There isn't any
16-bit JPG (that I know of) so a JPG would have to be an 8-bit per channel
image and assuming 4:1 compression, that still computes to 28 MB/image. Is
this correct?

4. Scanning time -- Adorama's info page for the 5400 says the scanning time
for maximum resolution is ~60 seconds per image. How does this decrease
with decreased resolution?

5. Input media -- I assume it will handle at least film strips and
paper-mounted slides. Will it do slides in thick plastic or metal/glass
mounts as well?

6. Adorama has KM-reconditioned 5400s for $120 less than the newer model.
What are the trade-offs here?

Any other information that would help me make an informed decision would be
greatly appreciated.

TIA
Norm
 
The Konica-Minolta web-site is worthless for any technical information. I
can't find much else at any of the camera stores I usually shop at, so I'm
appealing for the following information:

1. Resolutions -- Obviously it does 5400 DPI (nominal). What else?
Probably 2700? Anything in-between like 3600 or 4500?

2. File Formats -- Does it produce JPG, TIFF, or proprietary files?

3. Typical file sizes -- Simple math says (based on 5232x7800 pixels) that
there are ~37.7 MP in an image. Assuming 16-bits per channel, that's a raw
file size of 37.7 x 6 MB = 226 MB / file. At 8-bits per color, the sizes are
half that. Now I'm sure it doesn't produce 226 MB files. There isn't any
16-bit JPG (that I know of) so a JPG would have to be an 8-bit per channel
image and assuming 4:1 compression, that still computes to 28 MB/image. Is
this correct?

4. Scanning time -- Adorama's info page for the 5400 says the scanning time
for maximum resolution is ~60 seconds per image. How does this decrease
with decreased resolution?

5. Input media -- I assume it will handle at least film strips and
paper-mounted slides. Will it do slides in thick plastic or metal/glass
mounts as well?

6. Adorama has KM-reconditioned 5400s for $120 less than the newer model.
What are the trade-offs here?

Any other information that would help me make an informed decision would be
greatly appreciated.

TIA
Norm
Click to expand...

If you really need to scan 35mm at 5400 ppi and 16 bit color (which
seems doubtful), then you will have to deal with 226 MB file sizes.
This means for hardware you'll want a very powerful processor with
obscene amounts of memory, probably 2 GB or more. Before going that
route, be sure you really need that. As for reduced scan resolutions,
I don't have a Minolta scanner, but every scanner I've seen will allow
you to scan at lower resolutions, and you do get faster scans... how
much faster depends on a lot of factors, including your specific
hardware.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
 
1. Resolutions -- Obviously it does 5400 DPI (nominal). What else?
Probably 2700? Anything in-between like 3600 or 4500?
Click to expand...

Although I only have the first model, not the Mk II, the new version
isn't that different from the older. Mk I: 540 - 675 - 900 - 1350 -
2700 - 5400..

Other resolutions wouldn't make sense since only those giving the
scanner's base res by a multiplication with an integer are done
without interpolation.
2. File Formats -- Does it produce JPG, TIFF, or proprietary files?
Click to expand...

JPEG, TIFF, BMP (on Windows), PICT (on Mac). Others may be possible
with other scanning applications. The file format is a function of the
software not the hardware.
3. Typical file sizes -- Simple math says (based on 5232x7800 pixels) that
there are ~37.7 MP in an image. Assuming 16-bits per channel, that's a raw
file size of 37.7 x 6 MB = 226 MB / file. At 8-bits per color, the sizes are
half that. Now I'm sure it doesn't produce 226 MB files. There isn't any
16-bit JPG (that I know of) so a JPG would have to be an 8-bit per channel
image and assuming 4:1 compression, that still computes to 28 MB/image. Is
this correct?
Click to expand...

Yes. JPEG is defined as 8 bit/channel, hence no 16 bit JPEG.

16 bit TIFFs at highest resolution for archival purposes will come out
as over 220 MB without cropping. Minolta's Dimage scan software is a
little tricky to get the maximum but it is possible (you have to
fiddle with the print size).
4. Scanning time -- Adorama's info page for the 5400 says the scanning time
for maximum resolution is ~60 seconds per image. How does this decrease
with decreased resolution?
Click to expand...

Actually the times may be faster with the Mk II model than with my
older 5400 but these 60 s I find highly optimistic. If, however, the
numbers from Adorama are correct, you don't have to think about lower
resolutions = lower times since you will need much more to set the
crop and image corrections.
5. Input media -- I assume it will handle at least film strips and
paper-mounted slides. Will it do slides in thick plastic or metal/glass
mounts as well?
Click to expand...

Minolta advises against using glass mounts, not only because the glass
could possibly break. Another reason is flare. I didn't have any
trouble with thicker plastic frames (about 3 mm), even the very
old-fashioned double-sided glass ones glued together with paper fit
into the holder.

With the Mk I came two light plastic frames to use instead of glass
ones.
6. Adorama has KM-reconditioned 5400s for $120 less than the newer model.
What are the trade-offs here?
Click to expand...

The original 5400 had a metal case, it looked elegant but rugged. It
was a little longer and not as wide, IIAC. The light source was
another one, stronger focused, hence the Grain Dissolver, which isn't
in the new model. the film holders had a pointed end instead of a
blunt one.

Manufacturing was a little erratic, the Mk I was very sensible to
slight differences, resulting in some units with noise and exposure
control. The first problem wasn't exactly rare. I know of one 5400
unit that gave erratic exposures.

Since Mk i is discontinued you are out of luck if you get a
troublesome unit. I, OTOH, was lucky - and I do even have a rather
early production model.
 
If you really need to scan 35mm at 5400 ppi and 16 bit color (which
seems doubtful), then you will have to deal with 226 MB file sizes.
This means for hardware you'll want a very powerful processor with
obscene amounts of memory, probably 2 GB or more.
Click to expand...

I had no trouble whatsoever with 768 MB and now 1 Gig. Up to 2 GB
isn't a problem, it's neither obscene nor prohibitively expensive. And
today's processors have long exceeded the needs of the graphics
software, only video editing needs faster and more powerful
processors.

For archiving purposes - and I don't think anyone wants to scan his
images every few weeks anew for differing purposes and output sizes -
the highest possible resolution (hardware, not interpolated!) is
paramount.
 
If you really need to scan 35mm at 5400 ppi and 16 bit color (which
seems doubtful), then you will have to deal with 226 MB file sizes.
Click to expand...

Mine are 120 GB roughly for the above.
This means for hardware you'll want a very powerful processor with
obscene amounts of memory, probably 2 GB or more.
Click to expand...

Actually, an Athlon with 2400 with 1Gb is fine.

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
For archiving purposes - and I don't think anyone wants to scan his
images every few weeks anew for differing purposes and output sizes -
the highest possible resolution (hardware, not interpolated!) is
paramount.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It means you can use your digital negative for anything
and resize as needed, knowing you have the full range of information
(provided you've set up a proper workflow and use the scanner
correctly).

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
They're quoting the time with no ICE etc - a plain scan. If you try it
on your 5400 (same as I have) a scan without ICE, GD etc is under a
minute. However, it's often not a lot of use <g>

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
Norm Dresner said:
The Konica-Minolta web-site is worthless for any technical
information. I
can't find much else at any of the camera stores I usually shop at, so
I'm
appealing for the following information:

1. Resolutions -- Obviously it does 5400 DPI (nominal). What else?
Probably 2700? Anything in-between like 3600 or 4500?
Click to expand...
Using the K-M software I can scan at

2. File Formats -- Does it produce JPG, TIFF, or proprietary files?
Click to expand...
As far as I can see it produces only TIFF.

3. Typical file sizes -- Simple math says (based on 5232x7800 pixels)
that
there are ~37.7 MP in an image. Assuming 16-bits per channel, that's
a raw
file size of 37.7 x 6 MB = 226 MB / file. At 8-bits per color, the
sizes are
half that. Now I'm sure it doesn't produce 226 MB files. There isn't
any
16-bit JPG (that I know of) so a JPG would have to be an 8-bit per
channel
image and assuming 4:1 compression, that still computes to 28
MB/image. Is
this correct?
Click to expand...
The 16 bit color scans are indeed 226 MB TIFFs.

4. Scanning time -- Adorama's info page for the 5400 says the
scanning time
for maximum resolution is ~60 seconds per image. How does this
decrease
with decreased resolution?
Click to expand...
Typically using ICE and GD on color negatives, I have scan times of
10-14 minutes.
B&W using GD goes for about 5 to 6 minutes.

5. Input media -- I assume it will handle at least film strips and
paper-mounted slides. Will it do slides in thick plastic or
metal/glass
mounts as well?
Click to expand...
I have used negative film only.

6. Adorama has KM-reconditioned 5400s for $120 less than the newer
model.
What are the trade-offs here?

Any other information that would help me make an informed decision
would be
greatly appreciated.

TIA
Norm
Click to expand...
For the rest I don't have any answers. Only that I am much satisfied
with the results, especially color.

Greetings, Alex
 
Charlie Hoffpauir said:
If you really need to scan 35mm at 5400 ppi and 16 bit color (which
seems doubtful), then you will have to deal with 226 MB file sizes.
This means for hardware you'll want a very powerful processor with
obscene amounts of memory, probably 2 GB or more. Before going that
route, be sure you really need that. As for reduced scan resolutions,
I don't have a Minolta scanner, but every scanner I've seen will allow
you to scan at lower resolutions, and you do get faster scans... how
much faster depends on a lot of factors, including your specific
hardware.
Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
Click to expand...

I have a dual processor XEON 2.0 GHz with currently 1 GB of RAM and almost
200GB of HD space installed on the image processing machine. I think it's
up to the task.

Norm
 
I have a dual processor XEON 2.0 GHz with currently 1 GB of RAM and almost
200GB of HD space installed on the image processing machine. I think it's
up to the task.

Norm
Click to expand...

Yes, it certainly is. But that only means you have the ability to deal
with the large file sizes. You still need to accept that large a file.
The only way to get smaller file sizes is to accept lesser quality -
either by scanning at a lower resolution, using a compressed file type
like jpeg, or reducing bit depth.

The only other point that I haven't seen addressed is your question
about the reconditioned scanner. In my view, it's a good deal. I
bought a new Nikon film scanner, and later bought a reconditioned
Epson for prints and 2 1/4 negatives, and I'm very pleased with both,
but especially happy about the money I saved by buying the
reconditioned Epson. One point to check though, many reconditioned
scanners do not come with the same (or any) software that is supplied
with a new scanner. In my case, that didn't matter as I already had
Photoshop. If you need the software that's included with the new
Minolta, bye sure to verify that the reconditioned one comes with the
software too.

Charlie Hoffpauir
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~charlieh/
 
The only other point that I haven't seen addressed is your question
about the reconditioned scanner.
Click to expand...

IIRC, I did point out the pitfalls of a refurbished Minolta 5400:
(e-mail address removed)
 
Norm said:
The Konica-Minolta web-site is worthless for any technical information.
I can't find much else at any of the camera stores I usually shop at, so
I'm appealing for the following information:

1. Resolutions -- Obviously it does 5400 DPI (nominal). What else?
Probably 2700? Anything in-between like 3600 or 4500?

2. File Formats -- Does it produce JPG, TIFF, or proprietary files?

3. Typical file sizes -- Simple math says (based on 5232x7800 pixels)
that there are ~37.7 MP in an image. Assuming 16-bits per channel,
that's a raw file size of 37.7 x 6 MB = 226 MB / file. At 8-bits per
color, the sizes are half that. Now I'm sure it doesn't produce 226 MB
files. There isn't any 16-bit JPG (that I know of) so a JPG would have
to be an 8-bit per channel image and assuming 4:1 compression, that
still computes to 28 MB/image. Is this correct?

4. Scanning time -- Adorama's info page for the 5400 says the scanning
time for maximum resolution is ~60 seconds per image. How does this
decrease with decreased resolution?

5. Input media -- I assume it will handle at least film strips and
paper-mounted slides. Will it do slides in thick plastic or metal/glass
mounts as well?

6. Adorama has KM-reconditioned 5400s for $120 less than the newer
model. What are the trade-offs here?

Any other information that would help me make an informed decision would
be greatly appreciated.

TIA
Norm
Click to expand...
Norm,

If you didn't already, you can download the 5400 manual here:

http://kmpi.konicaminolta.us/eprise...ges/DiMAGE_Scan_Elite_5400_II?mDetail=Manuals

Seem pretty complete to me.

Also
see:http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/ProductCategory.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=-8172

for pricing of Epson 4990. Looks like $449 to me with free shipping.

Hope this helps,
Dave
 
Look for Konica Minola's PageScope Cabinet. It will allow you to import
as tiff, mutli-page tiff, pdf, jpg, more. It is freeware with the
purchase of their higher end document and micrographic scanners.

Matt
 
As far as I can see it produces only TIFF.
Click to expand...
Who hasn't been reading their manual, then?

--

Hecate - The Real One
(e-mail address removed)
Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
 
Hecate said:
Who hasn't been reading their manual, then?
Click to expand...

I DID read the manual thorougly :(
I should have said: I have experience with 16 bits/color only and that
outputs as TIFF only. Never used 8 bits up till now.

Greetings, Alex
 
If you really need to scan 35mm at 5400 ppi and 16 bit color (which
seems doubtful), then you will have to deal with 226 MB file sizes.
Click to expand...

Not doubtful at all, but essential if the goal is maximum quality and
preservation of raw data.

Yes, it certainly is. But that only means you have the ability to deal
with the large file sizes. You still need to accept that large a file.
Click to expand...

What's the difference between "deal" and "accept"? If you mean bus
speed, virtually any processor for quite some time now can handle both
USB 2.0 and FireWire very easily.

On the other hand, physical RAM has absolutely nothing to do with file
size. This has been the case for some couple of decades now (on
mainframes even longer than that).

The magic is called "virtual memory" which basically means a portion
of the hard disk is declared as "RAM" and "pages" are swapped in and
out of physical RAM as needed. Therefore, the only restriction on file
size is the amount of virtual memory provided by the OS.

The only observable effect of small amount of physical RAM is
increased disk activity, also known as "thrashing".

Given the above specs Norm's machine can handle a 250 MB file with its
eyes closed and with half a processor tied behind its back while
hopping on one leg... ;o)

Don.
 
Minolta advises against using glass mounts, not only because the glass
could possibly break. Another reason is flare.
Click to expand...

Actually, the main reasons against glass mounts are:
- additional loss of quality
- anti-Newton glass artifacts

The image on the film is already second generation so scanning is
really "taking a picture of a picture". That's bad enough, but having
another "medium" (i.e. glass) in the way just makes matters worse.

Anti-Newton glass (which virtually all glass mounts are made of) is
"roughened" glass to avoid so-called Newton's rings (circular
rainbow-like artifacts). This rough surface, although invisible to the
naked eye, causes serious distortions when scanned (if one cares about
high quality).

The only possible reason for using glass mounts is to flatten curved
film which otherwise would be out of focus. But that's a case of a
"lesser evil" and other methods to flatten the film are preferable.

Don.
 
Charlie said:
If you really need to scan 35mm at 5400 ppi and 16 bit color (which
seems doubtful), then you will have to deal with 226 MB file sizes.
This means for hardware you'll want a very powerful processor with
obscene amounts of memory, probably 2 GB or more.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I do this routinely with 1 GB of RAM in Photoshop E 3 on a
2.4 GHz Celeron. Once that archive version (230 MB) is done and saved
(post color, tone, bright, contrast, etc), then downsampled to "work"
sizes, and output at 8 bits. It's a very easy flow and does not require
a "killer" machine.

Cheers,
Alan
 
Back
Top